Mr. GRAY. No; it is a separate fund for experimental work in TB studies and eradication. It is $150,000 in the Budget, and we want that retained.

Mr. CANNON. That is not earmarked out of the $1,500,000?

Mr. GRAY. It may be earmarked from some of the emergency appropriations.

Mr. THURSTON. You are just sustaining the appropriation?
Mr. GRAY. That is it.

Mr. CANNON. I am not certain about that, as to whether that would come under diseased investigations. Suppose that you submit to the clerk later on, when correcting your notes, a sufficient index as to whether that should come under this item on page 103 or whether it should come under "Disease control."

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

(The information asked for is as follows:)

The item of $150,000, which is described as being for experimental purposes in livestock diseases, is found in the "Activities or projects", on page 501 of Subcommittee Print, 1937, of the Agricultural Department, and the Farm Credit Administration appropriation bill. The funds are designed largely for additional work on Bangs' disease in developing new and more efficient vaccines.

Mr. CANNON. You want $150,000, then, for further experimental work?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir; for further experimental work.

BANG'S DISEASE CONTROL AND ERADICATION

Mr. CANNON. What is the next item?

Mr. GRAY. For Bang's disease control and eradication, the Budget is $11,350,000.

Mr. CANNON. Yes; that is on page 500.

Mr. GRAY. We want that raised.

Mr. CANNON. You have $17,500,000 here.

Mr. GRAY. We want the appropriation for Bang's disease eradication raised to $26,000,000.

Mr. THURSTON. Mr. Chairman, when the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Husbandry was up here, as I recall, I asked if they could use more funds than the Budget had allotted, and it seems to me he replied that they would not have the personnel to use a greater sum. Mr. CANNON. On this one item?

Mr. THURSTON. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. We have in the break-down an estimate for 1937 of $11,350,000, which is an increase of $7,250,000 over the current year. The current year we only had $4,000,000 for that purpose, and the proposition now is $11,350,000. What else do you propose in that item?

Mr. GRAY. To raise that Budget item up to $26,000,000.

Mr. CANNON. You want it increased from $11,350,000 to $26,000,000?

Mr. GRAY. Yes. At the present time there is $1,500,000 per month being expended on Bang's disease control and eradication. This month $1,500,000, approximately, is being expended. That is at the rate of about $18,000,000 a year, and the Budget estimates will not

carry you through the fiscal year unless we materially shut down on the Bang's disease program; and we do not want to do that.

At the rate New York State is going on Bang's disease control work they will need $1,500,000 next year in that one State. So the $11,350,000 in the estimates for that purpose seems to be too small an amount.

MASTITIS CONTROL

Mr. CANNON. What is your next item?
Mr. GRAY. For mastitis control.

Mr. CANNON. Does mastitis come under elimination of diseased cattle, or does it come under tuberculosis eradication?

Mr. GRAY. For mastitis we want $5,000,000. That can be used, or I think be transferred from the Connally-Jones Cattle Act, in which they made cattle a basic commodity. Just where you will find it in your bill, I do not know.

Mr. CANNON. You want $5,000,000 for mastitis?

Mr. GRAY. Yes.

AVIAN TUBERCULOSIS

Mr. GRAY. Now, still in Animal Industry, on page 103, you have an appropriation there for avian tuberculosis.

Mr. CANNON. What page is that on?

Mr. GRAY. Page 103; and you have an administrative estimate there of $1,103,116.

Mr. CANNON. In the breakdown it gives $396,884 for the payment of indemnities for avian tuberculosis.

Mr. GRAY. The administrative expense is in the Budget as $1,103,116.

Mr. CANNON. Give that again.

Mr. GRAY. The administrative expense is $1,103,116, and the indemnities for avian tuberculosis are $396,884.

Mr. CANNON. $396,884?

Mr. GRAY. I am not asking any increases, but I want those funds retained. You gentlemen are going to be pressed from various sources to increase or decrease this item, but the Farm Bureau Federation wants the avian tuberculosis proposition kept with those funds. They ought to be fairly adequate for the next fiscal year.

BUREAU OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEY

FUR-BEARING ANIMAL EXPERIMENT STATION

There is one other thing then in the biological survey on page 351. We have a fur-bearing animal experiment station at Saratoga Springs, N. Y.

Mr. CANNON. We are providing this year $77,612, an increase of about $25,000 over last year, including not to exceed $21,500 for purchase of the fur-bearing animal experiment station at Saratoga Springs. Is that satisfactory to you?

Mr. GRAY. If the $21,500 will buy the plant, we want the Federal Government to buy the plant, because the fur industry is one of the very prominent things by which farmer-trappers make a lot of money in the winter; and we want that fur-animal experiment conducted by the Federal Government.

SOIL CONSERVATION

Mr. CANNON. What is the next item?

Mr. GRAY. Next, I wish to call the attention of the committee to the items for the soil-conservation service beginning on page 475. The appropriations for 1936 were $665,408. The estimates for 1937 are $27,500,000. This appears to be a phenomenal increase, as it truly is, but the need for research and other activities by the soil-conservation service is almost immeasurably greater now than could have been foreseen in 1935 when the appropriations for fiscal 1936 were agreed upon.

Congress is now enacting a great Federal-aid project to be known as the Soil Conservation Act, which will require in its initiation and throughout all subsequent years increasing knowledge in regard to soil conservation and erosion-control matters, radiating no doubt into forestation and similar projects. The entire question of a national land-utilization program is contained in the soil-conservation service, together with its forthcoming relationship to the program to be put into effect following the enactment of the Soil Conservation Act of 1936. Consequently, the item of $27,500,000 for soil-conservation service should be retained.

AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTED

Mr. CANNON. Do you recommend any reduction in this bill at all in any point, Mr. Gray?

Mr. GRAY. No.

Mr. CANNON. What is the total amount of the increases you have estimated here in millions of dollars; have you estimated that?

Mr. GRAY. No; I have not. It would be less than a million, except for Bang's control.

Mr. CANNON. You asked for a million dollars in one item, and on Bang's disease you asked for $10,000,000.

Mr. GRAY. Except for Bang's, I do not believe my requests for increases would be over a million dollars all told.

Mr. CANNON. These requests that you have made here today run about $30,000,000. I will ask the clerk to estimate the total of your requests.

You

You

The reason I ask this, Mr. Gray, is because you made a speech out in my district, at Bowling Green, last fall in which you emphasized the fact that the Government was spending too much money. deprecated the expenditures we were making at that time. said we will have to pay for this, and our children's children will have to pay for it. That was one of the principal things that you stressed in your speech at that time.

Now, you come here, and instead of asking for a reduction in expenditures, you ask for this tremendous increase.

I fail to harmonize your statements on the hustings, speaking to the farmers, warning them against the increase of Government expenditures with your coming before this committee and asking for millions of increase. You understand that I do not differ with you as to the wisdom of these increases, or as to the necessity of these expenditures, but I just do not understand the discrepancy in your

position now as compared with your position when you spoke ou there, in which the principal part of your speech was emphasis on the fact that we were spending vast sums of money, too much money that we ought to get back to normal expenditures.

Mr. GRAY. To myself, I can explain that satisfactorily, althoug it may not be satisfactory to you and the members of the committee. But, when I go out to our people, as I do, when Congress is not ir session, and travel all over the country and make such talks, I try to plant seeds of thought in the minds of our people, which, as in this case, would tend toward dissuading them from asking for more money That was my purpose in speaking as I did; and I made that same sor: of a talk in perhaps a hundred different locations. I have always tried to let our people know that pay day is coming. If I could get all over the United States and reach all of our Farm Bureau people, it would have more of an effect along that line.

Now, then, after my speeches out over my circuit have ended, I come back here to Washington, and get resolutions which were adopted in State meetings, and get telegrams and letters from county bureaus There are 1,800 county bureaus throughout the country, and there are only a few of which I can visit personally; and yet they telegraph me and write me from all over the United States. When I come back to Washington and appear before the committee I am a hired man. I am transmitting to you gentlemen what responsible units in our organization have asked me, as a representative, to transmit; and I have tried to present to you gentlemen everything which came to me from responsible units of our federation.

In other words, the line of thought which I expressed at Bowling Green, and which you have accurately described, has not been as effective in dissuading our Farm Bureau people from asking for more money as I had hoped. Had I been able to make that kind of a speech in 500 different locations instead of as it was, in less than 100, perhaps I would not need to present so many requests today.

I went over Missouri and made speeches in five different locations, of which Bowling Green was one, and reached representatives of practically every county farm bureau in the State. I made that same sort of speech, so far as the appropriation segment of the speech was concerned, in every place in Missouri. Of all these requests that I have presented here this morning, not one comes from the Missour Federation or from a county bureau in Missouri.

Mr. CANNON. The reason I asked this question was that this same speech was made, as you say, at 100 places, and it was construed by those who heard it as an expression of the policy of the great organization which you represent, and it was interpreted by them as an attack upon the administration which is spending this money, and upon this committee, of which I am a member, for authorizing these expenditures.

Now, I think I would accurately reflect your sentiment if I would go back in answer to those who thought your speech was a criticism and say to them that that was not the case, that, as a matter of fact, you favored increased expenditures.

Mr. GRAY. From my testimony this morning, that statement would be an accurate one, that I favor increased appropriations, because that is the substance of my testimony.

Mr. CANNON. Is there anything further?

Mr. BUCKBEE. You have been very patient. Our friend, Mr. Gray, has a thorough understanding of the Illinois district. I believe that our friends there cooperate with his department as losely as any district in the country. We do our best, and we know that our taxes come out of the farmer, to a certain extent, because everything is open when our assessors come to look them over. I know that this committee is very open so far as politics are concerned. Very rarely have I ever heard the generic term of politics entered into the discussion here. As far as being sympathetic with the farmers is concerned, we are all farmers, I believe on this subcommittee.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Gray, we are greatly obliged to you for your statement and your suggestions. I do not believe that there is, and. I think I express the sentiments of the committee, when I say I do not think that there is any one man who has appeared before the committee whose statements, or whose recommendations, will be given greater weight.

Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANNON. If you have any further suggestions in this connection, we hope you will let us have them before the bill is reported. Mr. GRAY. I shall be glad to do so. I want to thank you for your patience.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1936.

FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY, MADISON, WIS.

Mr. CANNON. The committee will resume its hearings. We have with us our friend, Congressman Boileau, of Wisconsin. Mr. Boileau, we will be glad to hear you at this time.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, there are quite a number of Members of the House who are very much interested in getting an increased appropriation for the Forest Products Laboratory. The clerk of the committee advises me that we have 1 hour in which to present this matter, and I would like the committee to hear Mr. Sauthoff, of Madison, Wis., a Member of the House, who will make his statement first.

Mr. CANNON. We will be glad to hear Mr. Sauthoff.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRY SAUTHOFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. SAUTHOFF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I come before you to recommend an increase of $500,000 for the item "Forest products research." It is a national and not a State project. The work under this heading is centralized very largely at the Forest Products Laboratory, in my home district and my home city of Madison, Wis.

Now, this is a national institution, with a program that ties into the problems of every State in the Union that has any forests or wood industries; but Wisconsin people, of course, have a special interest in the laboratory's successful development. Its work is highly important to the administration's reforestation program and of direct benefit to the northern half of our State, whose communities are dependent